Tuesday, December 1, 2015
WILL SUCH FRANKNESS (FRANCIS, GET IT?) GET CARDINAL ROBERT SARAH REBURKED? I MEAN REBUKED?
While his books were not magisterial, as Pope Benedict clearly pointed out, he was careful not to promote heterodoxy or to lead the faithful astray even though anyone could have critiqued these writings.
Anyone who has read the Baltimore Catechism (most children in the 1950's) knows that not everything a pope says is magisterial. Popes can have opinions. Their opinions can be wrong even when commenting on churchy sorts of things.
Thus, people who are ignorant of Church teaching and don't even know the minimal basics of the Baltimore Catechism get all bent out of shape when Pope Francis speaks off-the-cuff as though these off-the-cuff statements constitute magisterial teachings. They don't of course! A second grader in the 1950's knew that!
Thus we have a cardinal of the curia disagreeing publicly with Pope Francis about an individual who is not Catholic, in this case, a Lutheran and Pope Francis musing that she can go to communion if her conscience dictates she should after bringing it to the Lord! (Sounds like fundamentalism to me, but who am I to judge?)
Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship publicly rebuked Pope Francis in no uncertainly clear terms:
Catholic World News
Cardinal Sarah: opening the doors to intercommunion would ‘promote profanation’
December 01, 2015
Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, warned that opening the doors to the reception of Holy Communion by Protestants, apart from “very exceptional circumstances,” would “promote profanation” of the Blessed Sacrament.
The prelate’s remarks, made in an interview with Aleteia, came two weeks after a Lutheran woman asked Pope Francis why she cannot receive Holy Communion. The Pope responded, “I would never dare give permission to do this as it is not my competence. One Baptism, one Lord, one faith. Speak with the Lord and go ahead. I dare not say any more.”
Asked, “If we’re not unified in faith and doctrine, do you think opening the doors to intercommunion would undermine belief in the True Presence?”, Cardinal Sarah responded:
I think it would promote profanation. We cannot do this. It’s not that I have to talk to the Lord in order to know if I should go to Communion. No, I have to know if I’m in accord with the rule of the Church. It’s my conscience that says: “Go.” My conscience must be enlightened by the rule of the Church, which says that in order to communicate, I need to be in the state of grace, without sin, and have the faith of the Catholic Church …
It’s not a personal desire or a personal dialogue with Jesus that determines if I can receive Communion in the Catholic Church. How can I know that the Lord has really said: “Come and receive my Body.” No. A person cannot decide if he is able to receive Communion. He has to have the rule of the Church: i.e., being a Catholic, being in a state of grace, properly married [if married].
In response to the question, “Could a priest give Holy Communion to both husband and wife if he knows one is Catholic and one is not?”, Cardinal Sarah replied:
No, we give Communion to Catholics. Many priests have told me: “I give Communion to everybody.” It’s nonsense. Sometimes, an Anglican who is very far away from his church for a very long period of time and who desires to receive Communion, can participate in Mass and receive Communion in the Catholic Church, where there is no sin, and he is properly married. Because they believe in the Eucharist, even if in the Anglican church is it not actually the Eucharist because there is no priesthood. But it is rare and would happen under very exceptional circumstances. This is something extraordinary and not ordinary.
But a Catholic cannot receive communion in the Anglican church, because there is no Communion; there is only bread. The bread is not consecrated, because the priest is not a priest. With the break of Henry VIII with the Catholic Church, priestly orders in the Anglican Church became null and void. So the consecration isn’t valid, and therefore it’s not the Eucharist.
Posted by Fr. Allan J. McDonald at Tuesday, December 01, 2015
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
How completely refreshing! Straight talk, clear and unambiguous!
Jimmy Akin penned a column about Pope Francis' response to the Lutheran woman's question about receiving Holy Communion in the Church. Jimmy Akin argued that being in a Lutheran church, Pope Francis was in a difficult situation in regard to ecumenism.
Here is what Jimmy Akin said:
"What might the pope have said? Of course, one response would be, “Become Catholic.” But if popes said that routinely when they were in a Lutheran church, they wouldn’t be invited to Lutheran churches and would lose this form of outreach to other Christians.
"Intra-Christian unity proceeds slowly. Being too explicit right up front is a little like saying “Marry me!” on the first date. So you wouldn’t really expect Pope Francis to explicitly propose swimming the Tiber in this particular context."
The former Prime Minister Tony Blair (who is married to a Catholic) would, when still an Anglican, receive Communion at a Catholic Church when holidaying in the south of France. Fair enough, there wasn't an Anglican church in the vicinity. However, he did the same when he got home and the priest (who of course knew he wasn't a Catholic) was happy to oblige. The then Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Hume, wrote to the PM asking him to desist. Blair acquiesced, but made the peevish comment 'I wonder what Jesus would have made of it'.
I know a German couple who are Lutheran and who would receive Communion in a Catholic church (unofficial intercommunion was tolerated for years) but ceased doing so about ten years ago - whether they were told not to by their own pastor or by a Catholic priest I know not, but told they were.
About six years ago The Times (London), which seems to have reverted to its 19th century anti-Catholic stance, made much of Benedict XVI's so-called 'gaffes' which were in fact nothing of the sort. Yet Francis drops bricks right, left and centre and the media doesn't seem to notice. When he told South American liberal religious to ignore the CDF, he was actually undermining his own authority since any letter of admonition from that Congregation must be approved by the pope; indeed, the old Holy Office didn't have a prefect since it was headed by the pope.
No-one thinks that off-the-cuff remarks are magisterial teaching; however it is legitimate to ask why Francis seems hell-bent on sowing confusion with his ramblings which are sometimes quite literally incoherent.
Cardinal Sarah and Bishop Schneider do not confess the Catholic Faith when they deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
He could have just kept his mouth shut.
"Reburked"! That's clever, Father McDonald. (BTW, given that you're a priest with a Scottish surname, has anyone ever abbreviated your name to "Mac Daddy"?)
Anyway, while I do think that Pope Francis is very good at handling one on one conversations--in private--with non-believers and partial believers, I don't think his conversational style works well in the age of globally linked smart phones. One adjusts one's manner of speaking to fit a particular conversation, but that adjustment becomes problematic when the world is listening.
God bless Cardinal Sarah!
Was the repentant thief, executed with our Savior, a member of the Catholic Church?
I wonder if Francis will get a public rebuke for his recent comments about "evil fundamentalist Catholics who believe in absolute truth" and Francis also stating that he can say that "because it's his church". That statement was stunning. What's going on! It's high time the bs coming from this mouth stops. The arrogance of stating that the church is his is chilling. Something is wrong with that man. Continuing to defend a clearly trouble person with obvious emotional issues, who also doesn't appear to believe the deposit of Faith, and who happens to be pope isn't helping matters. The bishops of the world and the laity need to confront Francis and demand he speak clearly. Either he believes everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches or he doesn't. And if he doesn't believe in the Catholic Faith then maybe, just maybe being the pope isn't the best life path for him.
Saint Paul instructed the Corinthians, "Do not be yoked with those who are different, with unbelievers. For what partnership do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What accord has Christ with Beliar? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?"
I think that someone like Cardinal Sarah, once elected to the chair of Peter, will help us sort out the mess that dishonest dialogue with unbelievers has created for Catholics. Dialogue should be tolerant, but truthful.
Of course, it is not clear from Pope Francis what he means by Catholic Fundamentalism. We can only interpret it from what Protestant fundamentalists are and most of us Catholics in the south know it when we see it. A fundamentalist thinks that Catholics won't be saved. A Catholic fundamentalist thinks only Catholics will be saved--think of Fr. Feeney who was excommunicated for his fundamentalism in the 1950's going overboard in a public way over the radio and print that only Catholics would be saved, Protestants and others were going to hell.
A Catholic fundamentalist is rigid, buys into the private revelations of others, especially those unapproved by the Church and awaits the destruction of the world in a gleeful way.
A Catholic fundamentalist is afraid of the world and won't relate to it at all, reclusive.
A Catholic fundamentalist I presume could be radicalized and created disharmony in the Church by stirring things up and also by becoming separatist.
None of the above are good to say the least!
Was the repentant thief, executed with our Savior, a member of the Catholic Church?
Are you saying you know he was not baptised with water?
Secondly, the dogma EENS says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Are you saying you know some Dismas ( repentent thief) in 2015 who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church ?
Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) says all need faith and baptism for salvation and we do not and cannot know of any exception to the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).
What the Pope means by Catholic fundamentalist...anyone who really believes the articles of the Creed.
Examples: Fundamentalist: Marc, Jusad, Fr. Mac, JBS, etc.
Good Catholic: Cavy Gnaw, Gob, Pelosi, Kerry, Biden, Obama
Well he has done it again on board an airliner back to Rome, you know either the Pope is the Pope of The Holy Roman Catholic Church or is not!! This is more than disturbing it is outright "HERESY" yes I said it because somebody has to!!! Fundamentalists indeed, so go ahead and lump in Roman Catholics and Jews, Protestants, Hindus with Islamic fanatics, and don't say he was taken out of context that does not work anymore!!! Remember just last Friday Francis described pious and devout Traditional priests as SCARY AND NEED HELP FOR THIER ILLNESS!!!
With due respect to Jimmy Atkin and Mark Thomas, it is the Pope's job to uphold the teachings of the Church. Certainly he was in a difficult situation but he only needed to state the Church's teaching on the matter.
Early in his pontificate Pope Benedict had a meeting with clergy from different churches. He told them that it was good to have dialogue but that they must not be under any misapprehension that the Catholic Church would be changing Her teachings. I find that honest and straightforward on the part of Pope Benedict. Things can be said in a way that is not offensive.
To state what he did was wrong on the part of Pope Francis. Note Cardinal Sarah has not sidestepped the issue. He, like Pope Benedict, is straightforward and honest.
In case anyone should be in any doubt, someone who knows Francis well commented that every move Francis makes is like that of a chess player and he knows precisely what he is doing. I think Cardinals Burke and Sarah, and the 12 others who signed the letter to Pope Francis know precisely what Francis is doing and it remains to be seen how long it will be allowed to go on.
Mark Thomas said...
Jimmy Akin penned a column about Pope Francis' response to the Lutheran woman's question about receiving Holy Communion in the Church... Here is what Jimmy Akin said: "Intra-Christian unity proceeds slowly. Being too explicit right up front is a little like saying “Marry me!” on the first date. So you wouldn’t really expect Pope Francis to explicitly propose swimming the Tiber in this particular context."
The apostles did the exact opposite, as even a cursory reading of the New Testament reveals.
You're darn right I'm a "fundamentalist" if by that you mean I believe in absolute truth and that the Church Jesus founded subsists in the Catholic Church. The bait and switch of "well (sniff) how can you claim a monopoly of truth? (sniff)" is just stupid. Of course Catholics don't "own" absolute truth. Absolute truth doesn't exist between my ears as though I own it. But I believe in the pre-existing absolute truth contained in Catholic revelation and know that the fullness of this truth only exists in the Catholic Church....so if I love people, will I tolerate them wandering in error and darkness, indifferent to their fate?
How I wish that all people could become Catholic! The solution of the world's problems is found in making disciples of all the nations. Name any problem on earth and the solution is ultimately found in becoming a Catholic saint. So why not seek to proselytize? The gays do it! The Muslims do it! Hell, the world, flesh, and devil all do it! Every form of communication on the planet promotes a vision of what is absolutely right, absolutely wrong...what ought to be done and what ought to be avoided....so to claim that it's a fundamentalist position (*and evil) to believe in absolute truth is contradictory and frankly quite stupid.
It's stupid because everyone is a fundamentalist in one way or another. The agnostic is a fundamentalist. The pacifist Amish farmer is a fundamentalist. The Mason "all religions are the same" is a fundamentalist.
Having a strong opinion or refusing to have a strong opinion about anything automatically makes you a fundamentalist.
The question is thus not whether or not you hold to any truth statement as "the truth" on which to base your life, but whether or not that particular truth statement is objectively true.
The communists absolutely believe they are right and that this macro-theory of everything justifies all their atrocities. The Muslims absolutely believe the Koran is God's last message to humanity...the Global Warming fanatics absolutely believe their scientism is right and that only one-world government (run by them) will save us all.
You think Planned Parenthood isn't full of fanatic fundamentalists? It's inane, it's stupid to even try to distinguish "moderates" from zealots. The only useful distinction is between who believes in an external, pre-existing truth that is intelligible and shareable and who believes all is internal, subjective, and ad hoc in a 'will to power, might = right" fashion.
Give me a fanatic fundamentalist who believes the truth is outside, pre-existing, and objective for that's a person we can convert by bringing them to the encounter with Christ. But if a man thinks all is subjective then he is blind and deaf to reason and peaceful persuasion.
Anonymous at December 2, 2015 at 10:20 AM said..."Remember just last Friday Francis described pious and devout Traditional priests as SCARY AND NEED HELP FOR THIER ILLNESS!!!"
His Holiness Pope Francis did not say that. That is another false charge against him that has circulated throughout the Traditional Blogosphere.
Several "Traditionalist" Catholic blogs offered headlines along the line that "Pope Francis Is Scared Of Holy Priests"..."Traditional Priests 'Scare' Pope Francis"..."Pope Hates Pious Priests"...
The fact is that in regard to the wire service stories in question that Traditionalists offered with the above headlines, not one...not one news article contained anything close to what the headlines had screamed.
Pope Francis never, never, never said that "pious and devout Traditional priests" scare him. Never.
If anything, why were certain Traditionalist Catholics who had believe the nonsense in question unable to consider the following: If Pope Francis had actually condemned Traditional Catholic priests, then why on earth has he worked overtime to establish peace between Rome and the SSPX?
Pope Francis declared that throughout the Holy Year, Catholics are free to approach SSPX priests to receive the Sacrament of Penance. Pope Francis is literally sending Catholic to SSPX priests and chapels. But he supposedly condemns Traditional Catholic priests? Really?
Pope Francis has referred to Catholics attached to SSPX as "faithful" Catholics. He has noted the "good faith and sacramental practice" of SSPX bishops and priests.
Based upon that alone, that is, his favorable analysis of the SSPX bishops and priests, why on earth would anyone have believed that Pope Francis condemned Traditional priests?
Please! Come on.
It is a shame that many people are inclined to believe the absurd, ridiculous claims that are floated daily against our Holy Father.
Mark, the problem is that unlike his predecessors, our Holy Father has a habit of not defining his terms, of not naming names or specifying who he's singling out as worthy of our judging them 'bad guys'.
The implication is that he's looking at 'traditionalists' because he doesn't seem to ever direct this sort of ire at what passes for liberation theologians, renegade nuns, left-wing junta governments, communists or socialists or bureaucrats ruling the various sectors of global commerce.
Instead we get these vague condemnations of "arms merchants" as though they exist isolated from governments and political parties. Or fossil fuel companies - again as though they aren't allied to governments and bureaucrats the world over.
There's no effort to provide context or extenuating circumstances as with a formerly active gay priest who repents and is now 'sincerely seeking the Lord'.
It's just sloppy thinking. How do you casually claim Rome was never sacked by Muslims? Or that war is the chief cause of death in Africa if not the world (and not, say, abortion?).
People are becoming MORE not less likely to believe the absurd about our Pope on account of these off the cuff remarks which are baffling even if read in the original Spanish.
More of this clarity, and less of Popes talking on airplanes....the latter is a recipe for disaster.
Jusad is on a roll! I love it. We are good counterpoint to each other.
O Lord they are not worthy
That Thou should'st come to them....
Jan said..."With due respect to Jimmy Atkin and Mark Thomas, it is the Pope's job to uphold the teachings of the Church."
Please understand that I didn't endorse Jimmy Akin's stance on this issue. I apologize if I gave that impression. I only offered one person's explanation as to why Pope Francis offered the response in question.
With me, it is to the point where I no longer think of the Pope as a real person. For me he has become an abstract issue, perhaps like for physicists the existence of dark matter. Current theory, as I understand it, is that unless dark matter exists in large quantities in the universe, the universe as matter does not add up to objective reality. Similarly, I understand, the existence of the Catholic Church presupposes the existence of a Pope who is also Catholic. However, in the wake by now countless un-Catholic even irreligious statements of his, of his many curious associations with oddball characters, well, he is now no more real to me as Pope than any other mystery wrapped in an enigma. History will have to tells us who he was and theologians much smarter than live today will have to explain what if any meaning can be attached or derived from his probable short rein.
Jusadbellum said..."Mark, the problem is that unlike his predecessors, our Holy Father has a habit of not defining his terms, of not naming names or specifying who he's singling out as worthy of our judging them 'bad guys'.
"The implication is that he's looking at 'traditionalists' because he doesn't seem to ever direct this sort of ire at what passes for liberation theologians, renegade nuns, left-wing junta governments, communists or socialists or bureaucrats ruling the various sectors of global commerce."
Jusadbellum, I agree that His Holiness Pope Francis has not defined certain terms that he has utilized. However, he has hurled criticisms at liberals. That is why Traditionalists are wrong to assume that Pope Francis only directs "insults" at Traditionalists.
Jusadbellum said..."How do you casually claim Rome was never sacked by Muslims? Or that war is the chief cause of death in Africa if not the world (and not, say, abortion?). People are becoming MORE not less likely to believe the absurd about our Pope on account of these off the cuff remarks which are baffling even if read in the original Spanish."
Your examples are valid in regard to countering certain comments offered by Pope Francis. Yes, the comments that you cited are free to be challenged by the Faithful.
I understand as to why people may dismiss certain off-the-cuff Papal remarks(such as the so-called "breed like rabbits" remark) that Pope Francis has uttered.
But what has baffled me is that many Traditionalists have claimed that Pope Francis said "X", they generate headlines that read "Pope Francis said 'X'", when he did not say "X".
A example as found in this thread: Pope Francis said (supposedly) that holy and Traditional priests "scare" him. Throughout the Traditional Catholic Blogosphere recently, headlines screamed the above claim.
However, in the accompanying news stories that said bloggers posted, not once did Pope Francis say that holy and Traditional Catholic priests "scare" him. He never said that.
Therefore, why did many Traditional Catholic bloggers write headlines that were false? Just as baffling to me is that after they read the news stories in question, Traditionalists posted messages in comment boxes to denounce Pope Francis' supposed hatred of holy priests.
Again, how on earth could a sentient adult Catholic read a news story in which Pope Francis did not...did not...condemn holy priests, then post a message that claimed that Pope Francis condemned holy priests?
How is that possible? How is it possible to claim that Pope Francis said "X" when he clearly did not say "X"?
Father McDonald, His Holiness Pope Francis has said that he accepts criticism (let's hope that it's done in respectful fashion). He has accepted criticism in humble fashion.
During the early months of his Pontificate, Pope Francis acknowledged the following during an interview with America magazine:
In regard to abortion, homosexual unions, and contraceptive methods, Pope Francis said that he hadn't "spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that."
The day following the publication of said interview, Pope Francis addressed the following during his audience with doctors:
"A widespread mentality of the useful, the “throw away culture” which today enslaves the hearts and intelligences of so many, has a very high cost: it requires eliminating human beings, especially if physically or socially weaker. Our answer to this mentality is a decisive and unhesitant “yes” to life.
“The first right of a human person is his/her life. He/she has other goods and some of them are more precious; but life is the fundamental good, condition for all the others” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, November 18, 1974, 11).
"Things have a price and are saleable, but persons have a dignity, they are worth more than things and they have no price. Because of this, attention to human life in its totality has become in recent times a real and proper priority of the Magisterium of the Church, particularly for life which is largely defenseless, namely, that of the disabled, the sick, the unborn, children, the elderly.
"Every unborn child, condemned unjustly to being aborted, has the face of the Lord, who before being born, and then when he was just born, experienced the rejection of the world. And every elderly person, even if he/she is sick or at the end of his/her days, bears in him/herself the face of Christ. They cannot be discarded!
"The third aspect is a mandate: be witnesses and propagators of this “culture of life.” Your being Catholic entails a greater responsibility: first of all, toward yourselves, for the commitment of coherence with the Christian vocation; and then towards contemporary culture, to contribute to recognize in human life the transcendent dimension, the imprint of the creative work of God, from the first instance of its conception.
"This is a commitment of the New Evangelization which requires often going against the current, paying as person. The Lord also counts on you to spread the “gospel of life."
Pope Francis accepted the criticism he noted then began to speak often and powerfully against the Culture of Death. Time and again Pope Francis has denounced the Culture of Death and promoted the Culture of Life.
I don't believe that he has any desire to "rebuke" Robert Cardinal Sarah.
Jusad makes a good point: this would be a better world in which to prepare for eternal life if everyone was Catholic--a good Catholic. We could certainly study, and even appreciate, the virtuous attributes found in the various religions and ecclesial communities of the world, but best to do so as good Catholics.
Ecumenical efforts, from the standpoint of the Catholic church, cannot mean a merging with any church outside of her. Non-Catholic ecclesial communities and denominations,which by varying degrees have some elements of truth within them, have accommodated that truth to error, with tenets that do not conform to and even contradict and her teachings. The Catholic church,which contains the fullness of the truth, cannot take on any error even for a noble reason. The best that can be hoped for is a mutual co-operation on things that are held in common and benefit the human community at large, not unlike a detente between nations of different governing philosophies.
God has sovereignty over His creation. His Church on earth has a certain spiritual sovereignty over those both inside and outside of her. The Divine grace of God through power of the the Holy Spirit reaches out beyond her physical bounderies to those who through no definitive, deliberate, culpable act of the will have rejected her truth. It even reaches out to those who have knowingly rejected her in order to enlighten them to see the error of their ways. The grace is available through the generosity and love of the Merciful God. He is God to all - even to those who don't recognize all His truths. It is up to those, according to how they are disposed to co-operation with the Holy Spirit, to accept His grace.
There are those who receive that light form the Divine Sun that come to see that it is the Church which contains the fullness truth, and so enter into it. Some outside the Church receive some benefit from the light through the Providence and Mercy of God according to His just designs and existing circumstances, which include the willingness to accept and act in response to God's grace. Of course the faithful have a Divinely-appointed role in co-operating with the Will of God to help bring about the conversion of others. Not that He needs us, but it is His gift to us to willingly allow us to help Him in this regard which also redounds to our spiritual benefit as well. Praise God from Whom all blessings flow.
It is in the prayers, spiritual works and efforts of the faithful, who through the power of the Holy Spirit, and the intercession of the Most Holy Mother of God whereby we co-operate with the grace of God, so that the clouds of darkness will break up and allow the light of God to shine through and illuminate souls to know, love, and desire what is true and holy. How great is our God to allow us to co-operate with Him in His Holy Work.
Mark Thomas, you make a lot of what Pope Francis is purported to have said that you say he has not said. What do you think of Pope Francis's comment posted by Fr McDonald or do you think that Pope Francis has been misquoted once again?
"Pope Francis why she cannot receive Holy Communion. The Pope responded, “I would never dare give permission to do this as it is not my competence. One Baptism, one Lord, one faith. Speak with the Lord and go ahead. I dare not say any more.”
"Speak with the Lord and go ahead." Wow, that covers just about everything. But, who are we to judge.
The Pope would have liked this line in an old country song, "...I know I been drinking' and running around...I know I been cheatin' and I know it ain't right, but me and the good Lord are gonna' have us a good talk a little later tonight." See everything is fixed.
Post a Comment